If it's taking you forever to diagram, you're diagramming wrong. It should take all of 20 seconds to actually draw out your diagram.

If you mean it takes you forever to fill in the diagram with deductions, then you're still not doing it efficiently. The deductions aren't some crazy, divined thing that comes from combining tons of different pieces of the puzzle together at the same time. It's a simple and iterative process.

First, look at the rules. If there are any shared variables between rules, see if you can combine the rules. Each time you combine a rule, write out the new deduction, and then check to see if you can combine any of the other rules into your new, combo-rule. If you can't, you're done making deductions.

Second, consider if there are some useful scenarios you can break the game into. If there are, draw out the scenarios (2-3, maybe 4 - any more than that, and it won't be useful). Rules/Combo-rules that generally lead to scenarios: blocks (the bigger, the better - if it can only fit in 2-3 places); options (if the variables in the option show up in other rules); Must Be Together relationships; one variable that shows up in most of the rules; weird rules (you know, the ones that seem really strong/restrictive, but don't fit into a nice conditional statement).

Deductions shouldn't take more than 30 seconds to do - you just start with the first rule and see if there's any overlap between it and another rule. If there is, combine them if possible. Then, move onto the second rule and do the same thing (now including the combo-rule in the process). And on and on until you hit the last rule. If you do this right, you won't miss any deduction.

Scenarios might take a little bit more time. However, it's going to save you from writing out a ton of scenarios during the questions, so overall it should be a time-saver (especially for Could Be True questions). The process is pretty much the same as for the deductions. First, draw out your new setups for the scenarios (for a block, each place the block can fit). Then, start with your first scenario, and go through each rule to see if it lets you fill anything in. Ignore the rule with which you built scenarios (you won't have any deductions from that rule, as it's already built into the scenario). If you make a deduction, start at the beginning with the first rule and go through them again (skipping the scenario-building rule and whichever rule you already used to make a deduction). Keep doing this until you get through all of the rules. Then, move onto the next scenario and do it over again.

Honestly, most people who take too much time on games waste most of that time doing stuff they think is productive. They'll sit there and go through dozens of possibilities in their heads, most of which won't be used during the game. Instead, have a iterative process like the one I describe above. Don't agonize over everything - deal with each rule, see if you can combine it with another, and then move on. See if you can build scenarios, and then move on.

As another quick note, if you scan the questions quickly, it can tell you stuff about the deductions to be made. If there are mostly conditional questions, there are going to be fewer deductions to make up front (as each question is changing the game up a bit/giving you more info). If there are a lot of absolute questions, then there are going to be more deductions. If you hit a game where you can't make many deductions (maybe 1 or 2), check for conditional questions - if the game is mostly conditional questions, you're probably fine. If the game is mostly absolute questions, you're probably missing something. Brute force the question that reads, "Which one of the following must be true?" and you have your deduction.

Wow thanks bp shinners for the advice. Logic Games were my strongest section in the beginning, so I think I forgot some of the basic rules (like trying to not to figure out every scenario for each game) while learning how to approach LR and RC. I combined your advice with a quick review of the Powerscore LG Bible and already eliminated 3 minutes off my total time to complete all of the section's questions. I guess the more I practice, the quicker I'll finish the questions? Do you think I have enough time to do this by the June examination?

flem wrote:shinners that's the best deduction/inferences advice I've seen - thank you for that.

edit: when you say conditional and absolute questions - is this the same as local and global, respectively?

I'm not 100% on the terminology used elsewhere (I self-prepped without books other than the PT books and have only taught for BP), but yes?

By conditional, I mean any question that gives you a new piece of information; usually, they start with "If ___________". So, for instance: If L goes second, which of the following must be true?

For absolute, I mean the ones that don't add any new information, and ask you to make a deduction just based on the rules (Which one of the following could be true?; which one of the following must be false?; we can determine for how many clowns exactly the number of other clowns that get out before them?).

It sounds like local/global are definitely apt ways of describing the ideas.

Last edited by bp shinners on Fri May 11, 2012 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.